3 ms·
That is absurd. Anybody who has read about the history of CD bit depth would know just how absurd that is. And I even personally investigated CD accuracy in bur
by MrTonyD 8y ago
That is absurd. Anybody who has read about the history of CD bit depth would know just how absurd that is. And I even personally investigated CD accuracy in burning using an electron microscope to understand how the laser burning process worked on the plastic media. It was absurdly inaccurate. All these claims about how great digital is are just crazy - claims made by people who are relying on old data about hearing accuracy and a religious faith in technology. Anybody who has actually designed instruments using the known laws of physics understands the incredible limitations - and those limitations apply to both characterizing hearing as well as reproducing sound digitally.
- mrob 8y ago>I even personally investigated CD accuracy in burning using an electron microscope to understand how the laser burning process worked on the plastic media. It was absurdly inaccurate. I can believe that, but the standard was designed to tolerate high bit error rates. 25% of the bits are redundant, as part of a error correction code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-interleaved_Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_coding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-interleaved_Reed%E2%80%9... This scheme works very well, as proved by people consistently ripping bit-for-bit identical copies of CDs pressed or burned with the same audio.